Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Welfare is obviously a substitute for ppl that dont have the funds to get what they need...
Because they dont have a job...
Give them a opportunity to get a Job and they will have to take a drug test to actually have the job.

Untill Then Welfare should be excally what it is...HELP
Not Help....Only if you live and lead a Personal life..Up to my standards

Welfare is obviously a substitute for ppl that dont have the funds to get what they need...
Because they dont have a job...
Give them a opportunity to get a Job and they will have to take a drug test to actually have the job.

Untill Then Welfare should be excally what it is...HELP
Not Help....Only if you live and lead a Personal life..Up to my standards

I hope you dont honestly think that there is a way to live a comfortable life on welfare. You can live on it, but you cant live a comfortable one.

Disagree. Unless your job performance is sub-par, I could care less what you do on your off time. I just fire you after a warning. The food and bar industry have one of the highest drug use. You wouldn't have any workers if you fire people who fail drug tests. A high percentage of people use illegal (mostly weed) drugs and are still good workers. Carl Sagen, various musicans and sports figure smoke weed and still kick *** at their professions. As a Bakery manager my job is to get the job done, show a profit and please the owners, not wage a social agenda. So, I wouldn't do the same when it comes to drug use and welfare.

There is 0 argument against this unless you are using drugs. I get drug tested at my county job and I work for my money. Why would people that get "free" money not have to be tested also? Makes perfect sense.

There is 0 argument against this unless you are using drugs. I get drug tested at my county job and I work for my money. Why would people that get "free" money not have to be tested also? Makes perfect sense.

I wonder if the cost of giving those tests to millions of people, considering the high cost of medicine, would be off-set by those drug users you kick off? Will we have weekly testing like some people on probation do? Will we have to hire more bueacrats to oversee the testing, or do you see hostipals hiring more urine tester during a time they are having trouble getting uncle sam to paid medicare and mediaide patients bills on time. This whole thing is undoable.

^ If we can kick people off welfare that are doing drugs and get some people to quit doing drugs. It would save money and possibly lives.

Are you willing to let the government go deeper in debt or paid more taxes to do it? Considering there are alot of things that can save people lives or get them off drugs that we don't do because of money. Drug treatment, better education are just some of the things I can think of off the top of my head. There isn't a willingness on the political or public mindset to do these things so why this?